1 2025:CGHC:36869 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRR No. 275 of 2024 Rajkumar S/o Jageshwer, Aged About 56 Years R/o Village- Piparsakti Tehsil- Podhi (Dehla) P.S. Akaltara, Dist. Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ... Applicant(s) versus 1 - Saraswati Bai W/o Rajkumar Bargah, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village- Hathkera, Tehsil- Bawli And P.S. Pathariya, Dist. Mungeli Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ku. Vibha D/o Rajkumar Bargah, Aged About 22 Years R/o Village- Hathkera, Tehsil- Bawli And P.S. Pathariya, Dist. Mungeli Chhattisgarh. ... Non-applicant(s) For Applicant : Mr. Mohit Kumar, Advocate. For Non-applicants : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 29.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mohit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. Ramayan Yadav, learned counsel for the non-applicants. 2. By way of this revision, the applicant has prayed for following relief: “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court may kindly be pleased to allow this revision and may further be pleased to set aside the impugned order KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 dated 23.12.2023 passed by Judge of Family Court, Mungeli, Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) in M.J.C. No. 92/2023 (ANNEXURE A/1) of the non-applicant to pay the maintenance, in the interest and also in the ends of justice.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the non-applicant No. 1 is the wife of the applicant and non-applicant No. 2 is the daughter of non- applicant No. 1 and the applicant. The non-applicants had earlier filed a maintenance application (Case No. 72/1998) before the learned Family Court against the applicant. On 28.06.2000, the concerned Family Court passed an order directing the applicant to pay maintenance of ₹500/- per month to each non-applicants. Subsequently, the non-applicants filed an application seeking enhancement of the maintenance amount, and on 28.05.2015, the Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹1,000/- per month for each applicant, effective from the date of the order. However, the applicants have stated that they are unable to sustain themselves with the said amount. Thereafter the non-applicants filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement in the maintenance amount upto Rs. 5000/- per month each before the learned Family Court. The applicant filed its reply to the said application and pleaded that he is a poor person and had an income of Rs 10,000/- per month hence the application u/s 127 CrPC of the non-applicants may be rejected. 4. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 of CrPC filled by non-applicants 3 without considering the situation faced by applicant and held that the non-applicant No.2 has got married and hence she is not entitle to get maintenance from applicant and enhanced the maintenance amount from Rs. 1000/- to Rs.2000 in favour of non-applicant No. 1. Being aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred this revision. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned Family Court has failed to comply with the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Anr., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324 in which While adjudicating this case, the Court found the need to frame guidelines that would cover "overlapping jurisdiction under different enactments for payment of maintenance, payment of interim maintenance, the criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance, the date from which maintenance is to be awarded, and the enforcement of orders of maintenance." It is pertinent to mention here that in furtherance of this Judgment the Hon'ble High also issued the endorsement to the subordinate court to comply with guidelines issued by the Apex Court. He further submits that the learned Court completely overlooked the fact that the non-applicant No. 1 is residing separately from applicant from the year 1994 and the applicant is no having any source of income as the condition of applicant was very critical that he lost his vision of both the eyes. He further submits that the applicant is a poor person and had an income of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The learned Family Court committed error by allowing the application for maintenance and, whereas there is no any source of income to the applicant for his 4 livelihood. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is illegal and perverse and is liable to be set-aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non-applicants opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and submits that the Family Court concerned after considering all the documents and evidence adduced by the parties has passed the order, in which no interference is called for. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with revision. 8. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that the non- applicants had earlier filed a maintenance application (Case No. 72/1998) before the learned Family Court against the applicant. On 28.06.2000, the concerned Family Court passed an order directing the applicant to pay maintenance of ₹500/- per month to each non- applicants. Subsequently, the non-applicants filed an application sought enhancement of the maintenance amount and on 28.05.2015, the learned Family Court enhanced the maintenance to ₹1,000/- per month for each applicant, effective from the date of the order. However, the applicants have stated that they are unable to sustain themselves with the said amount. Thereafter, the non- applicants again filed an application under Section 127 of Cr.P.C. for enhancement in the maintenance amount upto Rs. 5000/- per month each before the learned Family Court. After hearing the parties, the learned Family Court partly allowed the application under Section 127 of CrPC filed by non-applicants whereby enhanced the maintenance amount to the tune of Rs. 1000/- per 5 month to Rs. 2000/- per month in favour of non-applicant No.1 and rejected the claim of applicant No.2 on the ground that she got married. While passing the said order, the learned Family Court had taken into account various relevant factors, including the income of the applicant/husband, the social and economic status of both parties, the standard of living as well as the prevailing cost of living and the current price index. The Family Court concerned had exercised its judicial discretion judiciously and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, considering the balance of financial capability of the applicant and the genuine needs of the non-applicant. Therefore, the maintenance so awarded cannot be said to be shockingly on higher side. 9. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents appended with revision and finding recorded by learned Family Court concerned, I am of the considered view that learned Family Court has not committed any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. 10. Accordingly, the revision being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 11. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned Family Court within a week from today for necessary information and follow up action. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal